An International Monetary Fund Currency to Rival the Dollar? Why Special Drawing Rights Can’t Play That Role (Development Policy Analysis) 56%

By Alex Beehler36%

7/7/2009, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 15.7% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 652 faulty-reasoning hits from 350 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.1% and a BS Rank of 56% (9,816 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.20% of the article peer group.

To alleviate the global recession, the G-20 group of nations recently agreed to authorize the International Monetary Fund to allocate $250 billion worth of Special Drawing Rights  the IMF’s unit of account  to its member states. 
This sparked much discussion on whether the SDR could become a new international currency, rivaling the U.S. dollar. 
Speculation was further fueled by the suggestions of Chinese officials that SDRs could displace the dollar in foreign exchange reserves. 
However, the SDR is not a currency and has no chance of becoming one. 
Today the SDR has two roles: as a unit of account, and as a line of credit between IMF members. 
Neither role makes it a currency. 
The SDR’s value is defined as equal to that of a basket of four currencies: the U.S. dollar, the euro, the yen, and the pound sterling. 
Member-states occasionally agree to issue SDRs to themselves, and these serve as mutual lines of credit, providing needy countries access to hard currency. 
SDR allocations represent purchasing power through a credit facility, not through creation of a new currency. 
Chinese officials and some leading economists want a greater role for SDRs in foreign exchange reserves. 
This would shift currency risk away from China to the IMF. 
But other IMF members would have to pick up that risk, and there is no reason for them to subsidize China. 
Underlying the SDR issue is a global struggle for political power. 
But China has a large and growing GDP and tax capacity, which may overtake that of the United States one day. 
Before then, the Chinese yuan will probably become convertible, and become a highly sought-after reserve currency in its own right. 
The real currency challenge to the dollar will come from the yuan, not the SDR. 
Swaminathan S. 
Anklesaria Aiyar is a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and has been editor of India’s two biggest financial dailies, The Economic Times and Financial Express. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.6%Alex Beehler: 8.3%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Alex Beehler: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.1%This article: 7.4%Alex Beehler: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic7.4%This article: 6.0%Alex Beehler: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias6.0%This article: 9.7%Alex Beehler: 3.8%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias9.7%This article: 2.6%Alex Beehler: 7.3%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.7%Alex Beehler: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.0%Alex Beehler: 2.7%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias6.0%This article: 4.0%Alex Beehler: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias4.0%This article: 11.7%Alex Beehler: 3.3%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias11.7%This article: 6.0%Alex Beehler: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias6.0%This article: 3.1%Alex Beehler: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Alex Beehler: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect15.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%Alex Beehler: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias5.7%This article: 3.1%Alex Beehler: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.7%Alex Beehler: 2.7%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority13.7%This article: 8.9%Alex Beehler: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma8.9%This article: 6.0%Alex Beehler: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope6.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 4.5%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 3.1%Alex Beehler: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring3.1%This article: 5.1%Alex Beehler: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon5.1%This article: 6.0%Alex Beehler: 2.4%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion6.0%This article: 4.0%Alex Beehler: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 3.1%Alex Beehler: 7.0%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.0%Alex Beehler: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof6.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.7%Alex Beehler: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.7%Alex Beehler: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground1.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.3%Alex Beehler: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote10.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.0%Alex Beehler: 3.8%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice10.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Beehler: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

350 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.